समाचार पत्र से चियत अंश Newspapers Clippings
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Sept 2020 समाचार पत्र से चियत अंश Newspapers Clippings A Daily service to keep DRDO Fraternity abreast with DRDO Technologies, Defence Technologies, Defence Policies, International Relations and Science & Technology Volume: 45 Issue: 2 September 2020 13 11 रक्षा िवज्ञान पुतकालय Defenceरक्षा िवज्ञान Science पुतकालय Library रक्षाDefence वैज्ञािनक सScienceूचना एवं प्रल Libraryेखन क द्र Defence Scientific Information & Documentation Centre रक्षा वैज्ञािनक सूचना एव ं प्रलेखन क द्र Defence Scientificमेटकॉफ Informationहाउस, िदली -& 110 Documentation 054 Centre Metcalfe House, Delhi - 110 054 मेटकॉफ हाउस, िदली - 110 054 Metcalfe House, Delhi- 110 054 CONTENT S. No. TITLE Page No. DRDO News 1-6 DRDO Technology News 1-6 1. Why is the Ministry of Defence so committed to forming committees? 1 2. DRDO’s Hypersonic Technology Demonstration Vehicle: Everything about India’s latest 4 defence technology 3. Hardeep Singh Puri to review ongoing development work at Darbhanga, Deoghar 5 airports on Saturday Defence News 6-14 Defence Strategic National/International 6-14 4. Rafale induction a game changer, says Rajnath Singh 6 5. Indian Army occupies heights overlooking PLA Army positions at Finger 4 along 8 Pangong Tso 6. भारतीय सेना ने फंगर 4 के पास क चोटय पर कया कजा, चीन पर सीधी नजर 9 7. लपुलेख म सेना ने शु कया मोच को सुधारने का काम, भारतीय सुरा एजसयां भी अलट 10 8. Explained: The evolving role of religious teachers in Army 11 9. India opens its army, navy and air bases for Japan; adds military heft to Quad 12 amid stand-off with China 10. India, France decide to expand cooperation in Indian Ocean Region 13 Science & Technology News 14-26 11. Scientists predict new superhard materials 14 12. New light amplifier can boost the potential of photonics 15 13. Spectral classification of excitons 16 14. Test of wave function collapse suggests gravity is not the answer 17 15. Rationally designing hierarchical zeolites for better diffusion and catalyst 18 efficiency COVID-19 Research News 20-26 16. Researchers develop anti-bacterial graphene face masks 20 17. COVID-19 study links strict social distancing to much lower chance of infection 22 18. New tool outsmarts COVID-19 virus to help vaccine development 24 19. After UK adverse event, Serum Institute halts India trials of Oxford vaccine 25 candidate DRDO News DRDO Technology News Fri, 11 Sept 2020 Why is the Ministry of Defence so committed to forming committees? At best, the ministry has cherry picked some recommendations for implementation, outrightly rejecting or remaining silent over the rest By Amit Cowshish The Ministry of Defence (MoD) appears to be a committee-happy colossus. Over several decades, it has instituted a mind-boggling number of panels, committees, working groups and task forces – often on matters previously examined by other, similar groups – only to later dump their reports and recommendations. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh chairs a meeting with Chief of Defence Staff, Tri-Service Chiefs and senior officials of Ministry of Defence, in New Delhi, Thursday, April 30, 2020. Photo: PTI At best, it has cherry picked some recommendations for implementation, outrightly rejecting or remaining silent over the rest. Consequently, most of these committees, barring a handful of exceptions, have had little or no impact, whether on indigenising defence requirements, hastening material procurement or improving the MoD’s functioning. On August 26, for instance, the MoD announced the institution of a five-member committee, headed by V. Ramagopal Rao, director of the Indian Institute of Technology in New Delhi, to overhaul the 52 laboratories of the government-run Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for ‘current and future defence and battlefield needs’. This is a reiteration of a similar committee established in 2007 under Dr P. Rama Rao, former secretary, Department of Science and Technology, also to review the DRDO’s functioning. The Rao committee’s recommendations, submitted in 2008, resulted in clubbing several DRDO laboratories and related institutions into smaller and more manageable clusters, but only after an internal MoD committee under the defence secretary had further scrutinised the recommendations and concurred in the regrouping of the DRDO’s laboratories in seven technology clusters headed by distinguished scientists as their directors general. The need to review this arrangement yet again, which began functioning 2011-12 onwards, remains inexplicable. 1 There has, however, been no dearth of committees and task forces regarding self-reliance in India’s defence requirements. In 1992-93 one such headed by the late A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, as DRDO head – and later president of India – had formulated a 10-year plan to augment the level of indigenisation in defence equipment from 30% to 70% by 2005. Almost two decades later, the situation remains unchanged, with India emerging as one of the world’s largest materiel importers for successive years. Subsequently, in 2004 the government constituted the Vijay Kelkar Committee, headed by the former finance secretary, to recommend changes in defence acquisition procedures by majorly involving the private sector. The report was submitted by it in two parts: the first in April 2005 that focused on defence procurement procedures in addition to recommending several ways to promote indigenous production. Though some of the Kelkar committee recommendations, like the creation of a 15-year equipment acquisition plan and the introduction of offsets in defence purchases, were accepted, many others were shelved. The rejected ones included the vital recommendation for accreditation and fostering of Raksha Udyog Ratnas, or industrial ‘jewels’, in the private sector that could undertake major defence manufacturing projects and joint ventures. The second part submitted later the same year suggested greater freedom for India’s nine Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs) to form joint ventures and consortiums with overseas original equipment manufacturers to render them more efficient. Seven years later in 2012, MoD issued ‘Guidelines for establishing Joint Venture Companies by DPSUs’ which, some reports suggest, were rescinded in 2016. The Kelkar committee also recommended corporatisation of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), which had been suggested by the T.K.A. Nair committee five years earlier in 2000. This was later to be recommended again by the Vice Admiral Raman Puri (retd) committee in 2015, albeit with slight changes, and the Lieutenant General D.B. Shekatkar (retd) committee the following year. However, it was only on May 16, 2020 that finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced the decision to corporatise the OFB as a part of the wider defence reforms to improve its autonomy, accountability and efficiency. Not much is known about how and when can one expect this ‘reform’ to fructify. Earlier, in 2001-02 following the recommendations of the L.K. Advani-led Group of Ministers, which examined the recommendations of the Kargil Review committee report on intelligence and operational lapses that led to an 11-week long border war with Pakistan in mid-1999, measures were initiated by the MoD to streamline military procurements. This included establishing the MoD’s ‘dedicated’ Capital Acquisition Wing in 2001. Since then, at least four committees have examined various aspects of the organisational structure and procedures evolved by the MoD for materiel procurements. The first was in 2007 under N.S. Sisodia, a retired civil servant and then director general of the New Delhi-based Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses, the IDSA. Its report was probably never made public. In 2012, the National Security Council set up a task force under Ravindra Gupta, a former secretary to examine various aspects of defence modernisation and self-reliance. Four years later in 2016, a committee headed by Pritam Singh, a management professional, recommended setting up of a bespoke Defence Acquisition Organisation to, among other things, promote indigenisation and self-reliance and bring the entire gamut of procurement activities under one organisation. The same year- 2016-the Committee of Experts, headed by Dhirendra Singh, another former secretary submitted a voluminous report which formed the basis for making several procedural changes to the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP)-2016. Unsurprisingly, this too is presently under review by a committee set up last year under stewardship of the MoD’s Director General (Acquisitions). Meanwhile, the 2008 Defence Expenditure Review Committee under the stewardship of V.K. Misra, former secretary (defence finance) had made several recommendations to rationalise 2 defence expenditure, much like the Arun Singh Committee 25 years earlier chaired by a former minister. What came out of the recommendations of these committees is unknown, but in 2016, yet another committee was constituted under General Shekatkar to re-balance defence expenditure by recommending measures to enhance the military’s combat capabilities and to improve its “teeth to tail ratio”, especially with regard to the Indian Army. Of the 188 recommendations made by the Shekatkar committee on a wide array like defence budget, modernisation, structural reorganisation, and training, only a handful had been implemented till April 2020 that included the long-awaited appointment of a Chief of Defence Staff. With no deadline laid down for implementing the accepted proposals, it will not be surprising if MoD loses interest and constitutes one more committee to examine identical issues in the coming years. All these innumerable committees and task forces have seldom proved fruitful, due principally to the change in political and bureaucratic leadership, or loss of interest, before the recommendations are implemented. Manohar Parrikar, the late defence minister, for example, was keen on creating a bespoke Defence Acquisition Organisation, but the 2016 Pritam Singh committee report which made innumerable suggestions to streamline this process was dumped once he returned to Goa as the chief minister.